I'm learning more about the multiple intelligences right now, and in particular what I'm wondering about is: What do other people think of it? I was researching this question online, and this twitter post caught my attention because it was a person's simple opinion, not some long thought-out piece. "It is not how smart you are but how you are smart. That's the basic premise of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI)." The quote I chose here is basically saying that the intelligence is all about where you excel, not if you can. I think this is a perfect explanation because it's quick and from this person's own experiences. It makes me wonder if there is some truth to this theory despite some valid opposing views. I suppose it's all what you make out of it.

I'm learning more about the multiple intelligences right now, and in particular what I'm wondering about is: What was the theory based upon? I was researching this question online, and this magazine article caught my attention because it implies some evidence for the theory is too inclusive to be entirely true. "The key to MI theory is that it addresses cultural diversity and inclusion of children with disabilities in a manner that enables them to function optimally in the classroom setting. Thus, attention is not drawn to the fact that some children are different in some way, because their learning experiences are constructed to maximize their success." The quote I chose here is basically saying that the Multiple intelligence theory draws a lot of its proof from using disabled students. Therefore, not everyone realizes that every child is going to be different. In turn, they will succeed differently. I think this is surprising because I had thought the original purpose for the theory was equality in the classroom, not focus on specific people. It makes me wonder if I should reevaluate my perception of the multiple intelligences.

I'm learning about multiple intelligences right now, in particular what I'm wondering about is: Have there been further studies on the subject? I was researching this question online, and this news item caught my attention because the title was blunt, there's no masking the point behind the article. "Last month, however, a group of cognitive scientists released a study concluding that the practice of shaping instruction around learning styles has no demonstrable effect on the individual student's grasp of classroom material." The quote I chose here is basically saying that scientists have disproved the multiple intelligences theory. There is no relation between the way a teacher teaches and how well a student gets the information. I think this is disheartening because I thought it was true, I still hope it is. It makes me wonder if the students I mentioned will have chances to live up to their potential.

I'm learning more about the multiple intelligences right now, and in particular what I'm wondering about is: How this theory is applied in modern education? I was researching this question online, and this blog post caught my attention because it mentioned that schools did not use a variety of learning styles to teach. "...American schools still base their instruction primarily on the verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. As a result, many students who are not strong in these traditional intelligences develop poor attitudes toward school and their academic achievement suffers." Most schools today base their curriculum around only two of several intelligences. However, many students are more adept in using other methods to learn. This makes it harder for those students to excel, despite having the ability to if given the right school environment. I think this is true because I know a bunch of people who are extremely talented in a lot of areas. They know a lot, but, they have poor grades, mainly because they can not showcase their abilities properly. It makes me wonder if the school system will change in the future. Then, maybe it will be more fair.

I'm learning more about synastry right now, and in particular what I'm wondering about is: How accurate is it? I was researching this question online, and this blog post caught my attention because it actually focuses on two real, well-known, people. "The patnership works best when they pursue goals with passionate commitment. Obviously there is the need to be aware that this can be a difficult contact and they have had their fair share of psychic conflicts that can at times spill out into violence of some sort. Lisa's control and distance can create passionate fury in Patrick's Mars. The couple have faced a lot in their relationship and this shows in their more difficult contacts. Patrick has battled alcohol, cocain and a riding accident that almost left him paralyzed, and his final battle was the fight against Cancer." The quote I chose here is basically saying that because of their synastry the two celebrities blend well. Also, their personalities tend to make them work together more. I think this is great support in favor of my topic because it focuses on real people providing an accurate example. It makes me wonder if I'll find more articles like this. I hope so. I kind of want to change my question. I can't find enough news articles on the topic.

What I noticed most about, "Searching for Main Street's Flushing Pimp" was the complete change in tone from the beginning to the end. It was really amazing to listen to the reporters as they unraveled their little mystery, and how new details would change their opinions. I found it poignant, beautiful even. There was just something in the way they spoke of the "Flushing Pimp" that was so moving. When the podcaster said, "...as the conversaton, kept going on and on it felt like she really did care for him..." I was thinking about how much I agree with that statement. When I started hearing that care for her brother emanating from her voice it made me tear up just a little. I think this is wonderful because I like it when things can move me to tears. It shows that the work is deep, and really something worth watching, reading, etc. Another part that I struck by was when Emanuel's sister said: "But that Saturday he died." This stood out for me because it was so sudden. Not to mention, Emanuel thought he was completely fine, I had hopes, small ones, but, I had them. I completely agree that it's great that Emanuel lived how he wanted to. One reason I say this is that many people who saw him seemed to enjoy his presence. He brought a lot of people happiness and he seemed proud of it. Another reason I agree with you is because he wanted to leave the hospital and go through his regular routine. It made him happy, it made him feel right, I guess. And that is just the way a person should live, as himself. Thanks for the great post. I think this was enlightening and somewhat inspiring. You put a lot of effort into this, and it shows. It was a joy to listen, I hope you'll make more.